Great content needs great support…
A Candid Plea: If you Benefit from this Web Site, please Help Support It
This post will have to be a bit candid because the matter is serious and there is no time to waste.
It is June 23 today and unfortunately we are not going to make ends meet for the month if the current decline in donations continues.
Our apologies, first of all, to all those among you who are current donors or have made donations in the past. You have sacrificed so much, and your continued support is so appreciated and needed. The following words are not addressed to you, they are addressed to those who have been sitting idly by and not contributed at all, figuring they’ll simply let you all carry the burden for them:
Folks, compared to the other “Catholics” out there, we sedevacantists are not many. There are very few sedevacantist web sites. We have to stick together if we are serious about our Faith. For some reason it seems nearly impossible to get sufficient support for even one single full-time sedevacantist web site.
Let’s be clear: It takes effort, time, and money to produce a web site that has a certain quality to it. Our visitor statistics indicate that there is plenty of interest in the web site. But the site can’t be placed on autopilot. Posts don’t write themselves; research doesn’t just happen; keeping up with the Novus Ordo Sect is a full-time job all by itself. There is plenty that goes on behind the scenes that you never see or hear about because it is administrative work (Novus Ordo Watch is an official non-profit organization), or because it involves direct private correspondence with souls who are struggling to figure things out and need one-on-one help.
Please have a good look around this web site. There is a lot of information on here; much of it is content you won’t find anywhere else. It took thousands of hours to put it there. Is it really worth so little to you? Then why are you constantly visiting the site?
Our annual budget is not large, compared to other, similar web sites that are not sedevacantist. We only need to raise $50,000 for the entire year. We only employ one full-time person and have a number of volunteers that assist with translations, research, graphics/video/audio, etc.
As a reminder, to reach our yearly goal of $50,000, it takes:
- 500 people to give $8.33 a month (=$100 a year), OR
- 250 people to give $16.67 a month (=$200 a year), OR
- 100 people to give $41.67 a month (=$500 a year), OR
- 50 people to give $83.33 a month (=$1,000 a year), OR
- 25 people to give $166.67 a month (=$2,000 a year), OR
- 10 people to give $416.67 a month (=$5,000 a year)
We have gone out of our way to make contributing to Novus Ordo Watch really worth your while. In the United States, your contribution is tax-deductible according to the full extent permitted by law. We have put together incentive gifts for donors to reward those who donate over a certain amount to also receive a tangible Catholic product in the mail. We constantly produce podcasts, articles with sharp analysis and insightful commentary, breaking news posts, tweets, and Facebook posts.
If all this still isn’t enough to merit your (at least small!) financial support, what more does it take? What do we need to do that we are not doing? Do you really want to log on to this site one day and get a “This page cannot be displayed” error?
To make a donation — either one-time or recurring — please click the button below to be led to our donations page:
Some might object, “I can’t contribute to you because although I am a sedevacantist, I disagree with you on [this or that detail].” Folks, if you make your financial support dependent upon agreement with your personal position on every single detail that sedevacantists can legitimately disagree on, then we will never get anywhere. We live in extremely wicked times, and the situation in the Catholic Church is such that no one before the death of Pope Pius XII could possibly have conceived of it in all its horror. There is no doubt that even the greatest of pre-Vatican II theologians would surely have disagreed with one another on at least some points of what is to be done during such a prolonged period of sede vacante. Examine yourself and see if perhaps your objection isn’t just an excuse to avoid making even a small tax-deductible donation.
One of our supporters told us: “Trads are cheap. You won’t get them to support you financially unless you make them pay for the content.” We want to prove him wrong! Novus Ordo Watch will never be a for-pay web site. It would defeat our purpose. We don’t want to deliver content only to those who first buy a subscription. More than anyone, we need to reach those very people who would never buy a subscription in the first place.
Cynics may object: “But if you need donors who contribute financially, then it is a for-pay web site.” Yes and no. It is not a for-pay web site in the sense that all the content is freely accessible for anyone at any time. But of course it costs money to produce this content and to maintain the site. That’s just a law of nature, and “the labourer is worthy of his hire” (Lk 10:7). How would people who object to this react if they were required to work for free? Truth be told, if we could work for free, we would. But alas, who can afford that?
Considering how much interest there is in this web site, raising the necessary funds to keep it going is not difficult. We simply need more people to chip in and do their part and not simply benefit on the backs of those who do contribute. Of course there are some people who truly cannot afford to. That’s fine — but for most people that’s simply not the case.
So, ladies and gentlemen, if you have not yet contributed to our 2017 campaign, please do so now (click here). It is so frustrating to constantly have to spend time fundraising when that time could be spent helping souls. In addition to the temporal incentives mentioned above, though, consider above all the spiritual benefits that come with almsgiving. God will not be outdone in generosity. This world with all its possessions will end, but virtue will be rewarded in Heaven forever (cf. Lk 12:33). Keep in mind, too, that “God loveth a cheerful giver” (2 Cor 9:7).
Moreover, consider that your generosity may very well, indirectly, help effect the conversion of sinners and thus the salvation of souls. And what does God say about that? “He must know that he who causeth a sinner to be converted from the error of his way, shall save his soul from death, and shall cover a multitude of sins” (Jas 5:20).
Is that not worth it?
1. What kind of phone is Francis using?
2. Exactly how many people are contributing monthly? 6? 7?
1. I have no idea.
2. I don’t know it off the top of my head, but I think we have roughly 20 people who are monthly contributors.
My first thought was Iphone, and it looks like gold…but that’s ok, after all he IS pope right? 😀
This is good to know. So, if 20 of us would send say, $200/month, that would be $48,000. And then we would OWN you muah haha
I just pledged $10/mo. It’s not much, but it’s the best I can do right now. Hope it helps!
Most certainly it does! Thank you so very much. God bless and reward you and all who have been helping.
I would love to donate. I would love for there to be someone out there to donate to with a free conscience. However I’m getting impatient with the anti-“Feenyism” of all these so-called Traditional Catholic groups out there. From what I could gather when I still had the leisure to study and research things, the beast that gave us Vatican II, first shook Heaven and earth to quash and bridle Fr. Feeney, and all hell followed his “excommunication” (for “disobedience” and nothing doctrinal if you actually read the document). What did he do but teach what had always been taught, “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved, he who does not believe shall be condemned.” (Mark 16:16)? Converting many people at that, including scions of the WASP ruling class, drawing the ire of all sorts of weak and modernist “Catholics” like the whole Kennedy Clan, Evelyn Waugh, and Richard Cushing the “bishop” who had blessed his own sister’s marriage to a Jew and earned a B’nai B’rith “Man of the Year” award?
What did St. Augustine say? “Jews, Heathens and Heretics have made a unity against unity.” Well, Jews, Heathens, Heretics and “Trads” have made a unity against Feeney, and I can’t think of any other “heretic” who’s faced such an awkward alliance.
Do an honest debate/discussion with the Dimond Brothers of Most Holy Family Monastery on Baptism of Desire and Fr. Feeney and I’ll consider giving something. Or at least declare a public truce on the Feeneyism and BOD issue. You people plead for Trad ecumenism on all sorts of other issues, all the while stoning the “Feeneyites”
Thank you for your kindness. As to your objection. The short answer is: “Feeneyism” is simply not the teaching of the Catholic Church. I know you vehemently disagree, and we won’t turn this combox into a forum to debate the issue. However, there is one thing I would like to ask you to do, if you don’t mind: Please read Chapter 11 of the book “Michael Davies: An Evaluation” by John Daly. I have never seen a better succinct treatment of the salvation issue than that chapter. I will go so far as to say that even if should still not be convinced after reading the chapter, you will still not regret having read it. The whole book is available for free electronic download in PDF here:
May God bless you.
Mark, I agree with you. The Feeneyites are not heretics, and they are not outside the Church. But listening to some of these traditional priests, you would think that the Feeneyites were worse than Jews. It really is unfair. Father Feeney may not have been 100% right on the salvation issue, but so what? It’s a difficult issue. Father Feeney chose to adhere most literally to Holy Scripture and the dogmatic definitions of the popes. Was he wrong to do so? Well, I for one say we should at least wait for a true pope to definitively explain to us how he was wrong before we decide to shun his adherents.
@georgerocc:disqus, exactly my thoughts. There’s a lot of confusion and contradiction on the issue–and the confusion and contradictory teachings have been tolerated or ignored or just not gotten to yet by Church authorities for a long time. I myself have toned down my opposition to BOD, because I think it just scandalizes people who’ve read it in this saint and that saint, and this catechism and that catechism, and this bible commentary and that one, etc. I think you just pull up too much wheat to pluck out the one weed, if they don’t yet understand the difference between erring in good faith and heresy. I suspect that BOD might be the error/heresy that is the root of the current crisis, but if Popes and Cardinals couldn’t have been bothered to explicitly condemn and avoid BOD adherents up till Vatican II, I don’t feel right doing it yet myself. On the other hand I think it’s impossible to say that BOD is taught authoritatively in Council or by the Pope, and whether or not it was legitimate it’s a fact that the excommunication of Feeney did not cite his positions on the salvation issue as the reason. So the anti-Feeneyites need to really check themselves.
As you say, some of them will literally say that a Christ-hating Jew has a better chance of going to heaven than a water-baptized, Athanasius creed reciting “Feeneyite”.
Folks, let me reiterate: We are not going to debate this issue here, and I will not approve any more posts slamming BOD/BOB. It is neither an error nor a heresy, and Pope Pius XII himself endorsed it in his 1951 address “Vegliare”: “An act of love can suffice for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace and supply for the absence of baptism; for the unborn child or for the newly-born, this way is not open.”
TRADCAST 004 is a podcast we have produced on the dogma of EENS:
@novusordowatch:disqus , re: “Pope Pius XII himself endorsed it in his 1951 address “Vegliare””. Okay–does that settle the debate though? Pope John XXII taught in addresses that the Saints did not yet enjoy the beatific vision, which was later condemned. Find the Ex Cathedra decree that anathematizes anyone who understands the verses “He who is believes and is baptized shall be saved” and ” Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” literally. You won’t find it because it doesn’t exist.
It settles the debate insofar as it explains *why* Pius XII “couldn’t have been bothered to explicitly condemn and avoid BOD adherents up till Vatican II” — he adhered to it himself. It also shows that your belief that “it’s impossible to say that BOD is taught authoritatively in Council or by the Pope” is false because the Pope was teaching authoritatively in his address.
It seems that you hold the mistaken view, as many do, that authoritative means infallible, as though non-infallible teaching were not authoritative. The Catholic’s obligation to adhere to everything the Church teaches is explained in his essay from the 1930s:
Now, before this goes any further, I will reiterate: We are not going to debate this issue in this combox. The issue can be debated, but please use a traditionalist forum somewhere, not the NOW combox. Thank you and God bless.
@novusordowatch:disqus I’ll honor your demands and stop posting after this–but if I’m not allowed to question the orthodoxy of BOD because Pius XII “authoritatively” taught it in an address to Italian midwives (which is like saying Peter authoritatively taught the re-establishment of the Moasic diet by eating with the Jews), then how are you allowed to reject John XXIII as a heretic and a non-catholic when Pius XII “authoritatively” made him a Cardinal of the whole entire Roman Catholic Church in 1953? Did he start hanging out with the Jews and the Masons and dabbling in modernism after that–or was his permanent record already long stamped as a suspect of modernism?
You are straining at a gnat while you choke on a camel.
Leave it alone now, please
Well, obviously we now know it’s possible for a Pope to accidentally make a heretic a Cardinal. After all, it’s an ecclesiastical office and if the Cardinal candidate is able to fool the Pope, he’ll get in. But nice attempt at trying to play gotcha. (shakes head)
And just think logically about what Pius XII “teaches” in “Vegliare” (if we grant that it is a “teaching” on the matter). Unbaptized Adults, who HAVE committed actual sins, have more than one option regarding access to Sanctifying Grace, but unbaptized infants, who have committed no actual sins, do not have access to Sanctifying Grace except through water baptism? They’re both stained by original sin, but the most weak, most helpless, most ignorant, most pure one has the stricter barrier to Heaven? The babe can be denied eternal beatitude by the malicious will of another human–but the adult sinner can earn it on his own by just wishing for it? It doesn’t sound like the way God would order salvation to me.
And when I really ponder it, BOD seems to me to essentially mean that every man has the potential to be saved on his own, or at least without the help of his human neighbor, through the force of his own will power. Sounds liberal, anarchic, Nietzschean, masonic, protestant, autistic and individualistic to me. It seems more Catholic and like Christ that all, adult and infant alike, in order to receive the life of Heaven, must humbly entrust his soul to the will and work of another, to receive the saving bath (and maintain enough fraternal charity to be offered the help), just as Christ Himself, who is infinite potential, and can even create ex nihil, nevertheless submitted Himself to the will and works of Mary, to receive his Earthly life through her Fiat and her womb.
If you think that baptism of desire is just “wishing for” salvation, indeed a being “saved on one’s own”, you have not the faintest idea about the doctrine you profess to reject.
Because the infant is incapable of making an act of the will, he cannot cooperate with God’s grace to make acts of contrition, faith, hope, or charity. Since God does not owe salvation to anyone — it is a gift, remember, and no one is owed it — there is no injustice involved. That “it doesn’t sound like the way God would order salvation to me” shows that you are not sufficiently familiar with the Catholic doctrines on justification and divine providence.
This shows once more that those who deny baptism of blood and desire quickly involve themselves in a whole host of errors.
Reminder: This is the last post. If you want to debate these issues, that’s fine — but it will not be on Novus Ordo Watch. Use a trad forum somewhere if you like. God bless you.
I will preface my remarks by saying that I will respond to your three lasts posts, and after this, I will approve no more responses on this thread about the issues discussed here. That goes for all participants here. Those who are on auto-approve will have their response deleted, just for the sake of being equally strict with everyone. This is supposed to be a combox, not an endless debate forum, and the comments ought to relate somewhat to the post being commented on.
Nice try, Mark, to find a parallel between the official teaching of the Supreme Pontiff, Pius XII, and the practice of St. Peter, which, by the way, was not wrong in itself, it was merely imprudent given the circumstances (scandal of the weak).
I do not reject John XXIII on account of him being a public heretic before his election as “Pope”. Had he been a public heretic, he would not have been able to be the valid archbishop of Venice, either – not just not Pope. Public heresy isn’t the only thing that keeps one from validly ascending the papacy, however. However, he was clearly the valid archbishop of Venice. John XXIII has already been discussed in another combox thread on a different post.
The Dimond Brothers have a lot of great videos but they are not perfect. The fact that they say that “everything we teach is true” is a bit on the arrogant side. And their leader (now deceased) claimed to be things that do not appear to be true.
To be fair, the Dimonds frequently say that certain things are just their opinion and don’t need to be followed. They say this about their opinion that John Paul II was THE ultimate Antichrist, and their other opinions regarding their interpretation of certain signs of the End Times. On the other hand I am not 100% convinced that one must avoid and condemn Baptism of Desire adherents as much as they themselves avoid and condemn the “Feeneyites”. I was convinced, but then I’ve come across the BOD teaching in so many places (never any place of significant authority, but all over the place) that I started to wonder when this obligation to avoid BOD people kicked in, as all Church authorities have been tolerating or ignoring it in bible commentaries, catechisms, and the writings of saints for hundreds of years. I do believe the salvation doctrine is crucial, and there is an error about it that is the root cause of the current crisis. And it’s no surprise that this issue is so contentious in North America, as the discovery of this land led to many of the debates about salvation outside the Church, since apparently whole nations had been living and dying for centuries over here without the Gospel.
I have not come across anywhere where they have said it’s just their opinion. That would be interesting to see. I just know that I disagreed once with some minor detail (I cannot remember what it was) and I was told by them that they basically are infallible. This is nonsense.
Also, I have some issues with the fact that they directly insulted my priest (he is a valid priest and he’s 84, so I say, cut him some slack). I don’t think people should be doing insulting priests, even if they do not agree with them. At least my priest when to seminary! They have not. Furthermore, hey tell people not to go to Mass if there is not a valid Mass and priest, yet they go to some eastern rite pro Vatican 2 church for Mass. I asked them directly if they go to a local Church or Mass and did not receive a reply. I would think that they would recommend a Church if there is one, or abstain from Mass, if there isn’t one.
As I said, they do have some excellent videos and books and I have learned a lot from them. They are doing their best, I believe. But they are not THE standard of faith.
The Dimond Brs (my 22 year old son’s biggest heroes) are arrogant. They have so much knowledge to impart but yet their main goal (as far as I can see as Ive been listening to them for about five years now) is to embarrass anyone that they debate.
You should always strive to have the upper hand in any argument (assuming you are doing the Lord’s bidding) but you shouldnt look to demean those who are wrong, because that tactic rarely works. Instead, with compassion, explain to them why they are wrong and do your best to guide them down the right path. The young Dimond Brs dont, or refuse to, understand this common sense way of dealing with people. I was a Newark NJ police officer for 22 years and I was taught to deal with people in this manner from day 1….thank God I was.
So you, as a cop, dealt with every single person you ever encountered “with compassion” patiently “explaining to them why they were wrong”? You never had to resort to threats, shouts, intimidation, fists, manhandling, a baton, taser or gun as the person and situation demanded? Or is there a law that occasionally exempts cops and everyone else from the obligation to be gentle and polite that doesn’t apply to people you don’t like, like the Dimond brothers?
Have you ever read any St. Jerome? Go look up anything he wrote that starts with “Against…” I’ve never heard the Dimonds treat anyone as roughly as Jerome treats Vigilantius and Jovinian. Go read St. Thomas More’s Response to Luther–it’s R-rated in places.
Better yet, refer to the Master. To the timid, humble and ignorant our Lord was gentle and kind, but to the educated, learned, rich, arrogant, and hard-hearted pharisees he was harsh and cutting. Has anyone ever been demeaned and talked down to more than those poor souls, called broods of vipers, unmarked graves, whited-sepulchers, blind fools?
And he also didn’t spend an inordinate amount of time and energy building up the self-esteem of his own disciples: the bible constantly says that they were afraid to ask him anymore questions–probably because they didn’t come away feeling smart and special after opening their mouths.
” All things have their season, and in their times all things pass under heaven. A time to be born and a time to die. A time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted. A time to kill, and a time to heal. A time to destroy, and a time to build. A time to weep, and a time to laugh. A time to mourn, and a time to dance. A time to scatter stones, and a time to gather. A time to embrace, and a time to be far from embraces.” (Ecclesiastes 3:1-5)
I had to deal with people in all sorts of ways as a cop. My point was that you look to deal with everyone, initially, in a decent manner. If that doesnt work then you do what you have to do, of course. People who are always looking to attack from the get go are fools.
Also, I never had to shoot anyone….thank God.
Why do you assume the Dimonds are attacking from the get go? Have you ever called them up and gotten attacked right off the bat? Maybe some of those debates and audios you’ve heard are closer to the end of their relationship with someone than towards the beginning. Regardless, I think it basically requires supernatural grace to maintain any charity with people in this country and age–almost every single person is studying or being mentored in subtle techniques of liberal persuasion and dishonesty, and outright lying, and almost everyone who’s been through the school system has been trained like a dog to attack anyone who displays certainty, critical thought and a love for Tradition and objective Truth–but with a smile and under the guise of a sheep.
Trying to stand for the truth, and to hate heresy and sin, to maintain an intolerance of the wicked, and keep the faith of Jesus Christ patiently in an rich and wicked age reminds me of the beginning of Apocalypse 2. If the Dimonds have lost Charity I know I would have lost it sooner in their position, so I’ll let the Lord rebuke them if they must be rebuked. As for me, I will learn from them unless and until someone can prove that they are heretics with something authoritative.
“Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write: These things saith he, who holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks: I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them that are evil, and thou hast tried them, who say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: And thou hast patience, and hast endured for my name, and hast not fainted. But I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first charity. Be mindful therefore from whence thou art fallen: and do penance, and do the first works. Or else I come to thee, and will move thy candlestick out of its place, except thou do penance.”
Mark, I greatly admire the Dimond brothers….I just know that they do not deal with people as they should (assuming that their goal is to convert people to the true Catholic Faith, and I believe that this is their goal). God’s law is paramount all the time, but if you initially try to jam it down someone’s throat they are likely to reject it. I was a cop for 22 years and in the process (early on) I realized that I had to be a social worker before anything else. Our mission as Catholics is to help save souls, and if people dont like you then you probably will not be able to help them. Connect first and then convey.
So you are comparing the Dimond brothers to St. Jerome? to Jesus Himself? When I gave my opinion on one of their many videos they were arrogant to the point of being almost Cult leaders.
When I spoke with the brothers, I don’t believe I was overly arrogant. I certainly would not call myself an “educated, learned, rich, arrogant, and hard-hearted Pharisee”. I probably come across at times as overly serious and arrogant (tho I hope not) because I work as an academic advisor at a university and all day long I have to type extremely precise emails so that my readers understand regulations, etc.
Still, to have someone who is not a pope tell me, “Everything we teach is true,” is just a tad arrogant. I can be wrong. I am wrong about many things. If I am wrong, I can admit it. They cannot. This is the what concerns me.
Question: if you’re teaching and you aren’t confident that “everything you teach is true” should you even be in the business of teaching?
If you are teaching, unless you are the Pope or Jesus Himself, you should be humble and aware that you don’t know everything.
If that’s what you really believe why aren’t you asking @novusordowatch:disqus to admit that they don’t know everything and maybe they’re wrong about BOD and they should make peace with the “Feenyites”. Imagine what we could accomplish if we just tabled all this until the next Pope clears it up.
I thought we had agreed to end this thread.
This is not an issue Catholics are allowed to disagree on. BOD and BOB are not optional teachings.
Thank you for your comments.
Wow, you were a police officer in Newark??? God bless you. That must have been interesting to say the least
If you have enough of a free conscience to be on this site, you should have the free conscience to donate. Or you could go start your own website.
I’m sure @novusordowatch:disqus visits and reads plenty of sites they don’t donate to, like L’Osservatore Romano–heck, I’ve even seen them repost a Most Holy Family Monastery video before.
A problem with Dimondite theology is they literally refuse to support anything except the Dimond Bro’s because that’s what the Dimond Bro’s have told them to do.
They’re allowed to receive “sacraments” and to use material from other sede’s but never part with a dollar. This is terribly convenient for the wallet, but tragic for charity and all the benefits from alms giving. Not to mention the duties we have to support one another in this time of insanity. Sad.
Yes,a bit on the cultish side…
There has been no “pharisaic demand” by me. It is Catholic teaching. If you think that anyone can simply “disagree” with the authentic Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff — which Pius XII was clearly exercising his address to midwives –, then you can produce the evidence (and if you have real evidence in this regard, send me a message with the citation info by using the contact form under the “Take Action” menu option at the top).
It seems you sneer at the Supreme Pontiff addressing a congress of midwives. Why? Do you not realize how important the work of a midwife is, especially as it regards the issues pertaining to man’s salvation (baptism, justification, grace)? Do you think the Roman Pontiff cannot
No, we are NOT forbidden, literally, from giving the teaching of angels uncritical acceptance by St. Paul. An angel is obviously incapable of teaching error (aside from the fact, for a moment, that no angel has been constituted by God a teacher in the Church in the first place). St. Paul’s warning obviously implies that if “an angel” were to teach a different gospel, he would be an angel only in appearance, a false “angel of light” that demons like to dress themselves up as.
Yes, Pius XII DID directly teach baptism of desire. He didn’t just reveal his “personal opinion”, so to speak, as in, “BTW, I personally happen to think that…” No, he stated categorically and objectively that “an act of love can suffice” for an adult to supply for the lack of water baptism. Granted, he does not elaborate, but he is certainly not offering his personal opinion but stating what is objectively the case.
There was no “offhand remark” here. The Holy Father was teaching the faithful he was addressing on matters of doctrine in an official papal act as Teacher of All Christians, which found its way into the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. He wasn’t making a comment to a friend over a glass of wine at the local trattoria.
You can find Pope Leo XIII’s instruction to Catholics regarding submission to the Roman Pontiff here:
Pope Leo XIII is AWESOME
First of all, IIRC, a few of the Roman martyrs who were canonized as saints were unbaptized catechumens.
As for your remark “then they don’t have the right to reject his Cardinals”… I’m sorry, but heretics lose all their Church offices by DIVINE LAW, even if they have them by ecclesiastical law. So a heretic who was given a Cardinalate by a valid Pope would have an invalid Cardinalate, and any votes he cast in a Conclave would also be invalid. Otherwise, we would have the absurd situation where it would be possible for anti-Catholics who wish the Church destroyed having the power to elect a valid Pope.
You “keep getting attacked” because you started out by saying why you refuse to donate to a decent web site. No one is forcing ANYONE to donate, but you felt the need to criticize NOW. I have found that NOW is the most reliable traditionalist site out there and I choose to donate. I don’t go to Dimond Bros site and say, “I would give you guys money, but I don’t like you so I won’t”. What good what that do? I simply don’t go to their site anymore. They do have some wonderful stuff which I have already said.
Also, according to the teaching of Jesus, it would be far more Christlike if you DID “keep your mouth shut if you are getting attacked”. Incredibly difficult to do. Possibly impossible in our own strength. But certainly more Christlike.
And the fact that you do not accept the teaching of a valid Pope is disturbing. The whole point of sedevacantism is that we accept a valid pope and his teaching, (even if he says things we do not personally like) but that the last 6 or 7 “popes” have been false. We don’t just say “I don’t like what he says, therefore he is not a pope.”
I have not verified these words and so I don’t know the context in which they were uttered, but if you’re saying that Bp. Sanborn denies BOB, I know you have misunderstood what he was saying. Probably what His Excellency said is that Baptism of Blood cannot be obtained outside the Church. The mortal sin of heresy, if one is subjectively guilty of it, is incompatible with Baptism of Blood.
Re: “Baptism of Blood cannot be obtained outside the Church”
Well, I’m glad to see I’ve finally made a “Feeneyite” (or rather, a Traditional Catholic) out of you. We are agreed, Baptism of Blood “cannot be obtained outside of the Church”, and inside of the Church it is superfluous b/c we have already been baptized with water. Martyrdom surely covers a multitude of sins, but it does not supply for a lack of membership in the Church, as the Council of Florence solemnly decrees:
“that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives…and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.” (Session 11, Council of Florence)
No one is a member of the Church, except he who has been born again of the water and the spirit. Therefore we can put aside this contradictory and confusing doctrine of man, that makes fools out of the wisest of men who try and defend it, and all the petty disputes arising from it, and join forces against our common enemies. Post a retraction and I’ll make a donation.
“Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, UNLESS a man be born again of WATER and the Holy Ghost, he CANNOT enter into the kingdom of God.
 “Unless a man be born again”: By these words our Saviour hath declared the necessity of baptism; and BY THE WORD WATER it is evident that the application of it IS NECESSARY WITH THE WORDS. Matt. 28. 19.” (John 3:5, w/ Bishop Challoner commentary)
You certainly did not make a Feeneyite out of me. Rather, you are mistaking “inside the Church” as being equivalent to “member of the Church”. Those two are not synonymous. The dogma is that there is no salvation *outside* the Church, not that there is no salvation *apart from Church membership*. Had the Church meant the latter, she would have defined that and not something else.
Yes, baptism by water is necessary for salvation — that’s not the issue. The issue what kind of necessity is meant here, for there are different kinds; for which reason, for example, you find St. Thomas Aquinas both arguing that baptism is necessary for salvation and that it can be supplied by baptism of desire (which is NOT the mere desire for baptism). Unfortunately, we are not going to discuss this any further here. People who would like to know the doctrines of the Church about all of these matters are encouraged to consult “Sacrae Theologiae Summa”, probably the most exhaustive pre-Vatican II theology manual available in English:
You can say someone is baptized into the Church, and should say so, because that is the externally verifiable criterion that begins Church membership.
We DON’T know who is inside the Church before baptism, and we don’t need to know.
You know, for someone who rejects baptism of desire and blood as erroneous or worse, you really seem to have very little knowledge of the subject matter. Why don’t you study the subject first before you decide that what Pope Pius XII himself taught isn’t true?
Right, yes, I am the most ignorant of men. Now that you’ve outed me as an ignoramus, maybe I can ask a very simple question without you making too much sport of me: is Baptism of Desire a sacrament? And what about “Baptism of Blood”, is it also a sacrament?
You are welcome to look these things up yourself. If you need the right resources, I’d be happy to help.